he just stated his sadness that Jackson and New Line Cinema are on a wrong path with the Hobbit, the slot machines, etc. Strange that this makes him "pompous brat" and "crybaby" at some poster...
what does the slot machine thing have anything to do with Peter Jackson? come on.
If he can't tell Jackson has a deep love and respect for HIS FATHER'S (not his) works, he is a grade A moron. The wrong path? He can go fuck himself. Jackson made a highly entertaining movie that captured the spirit and essence and soul of the novel, as he did with LOTR.
There is absolutely no need for all the vulgarity and hate. An argument that has merit maintains that merit without trying to attack someone. Case in point, I agree with the core of what you said. Its clear that Jackson loves LoTR. He spent god only knows how much money flying all over the world to find locations that were picture perfect for the story. I bet there is an army of artist right now that are on meds after going through design after design trying to find the perfect weapons and armor to use. He put everything he had into making the movie a visually perfect realization of the books.
1. These movies cost a shit ton of money to make. And visually Jackson has done an astounding job with Middle Earth. In order for the movies to be financially successful, some hollywood touches need to be made.
2. As for the action movie claims, The Hobbit is a pretty fast moving story and in particular the goblin > wargs/trees sequence is non stop action in the books as well as the movie. The goblin escape was handled quite poorly in the movie though, no reason at all for that huge fall then the goblin lands on top of them.
3. The good Jackson brings to the table FAR out weighs the bad. Again, his use of NZ as Middle Earth is stunning. And lets not forget Gollum, no one else would have done half as well as Jackson with Gollum. And the heart is still there. Jackson obviously loves the source material and it shows. I have no doubts that his adaptations are as good as we wer elikely to get, far better really.
4. Christopher is an ungrateful brat. Jackson has brought mllions to Middle Earth that have gone on to read and appreciate his fathers writings.
Agreed. Before the movies, Tolkien had an underground cult following. Now everyone and their grandma is a Tolkien fan. Don't get me wrong, I looooved those days when not many people knew anything about LOTR but finding anything related to LOTR and the Hobbit back then was tough. After the movies came out millions of people went and bought the books which in turn made them in to life long fans and the book money still goes to the Tolkien estate so Chri$topher Tolkien can suck it. When I was 12 and first read the hobbit and lotr all we had were the books, 3 cartoons, and 2 DOS Interplay games. I'd have killed to have what we have now.
Underground cult following. Yeah, if by underground cult following you mean multiple polls naming it the greatest books of the 20th century. One tha's sold well over 150 million copies. Sheesh.
1. These movies cost a shit ton of money to make. And visually Jackson has done an astounding job with Middle Earth. In order for the movies to be financially successful, some hollywood touches need to be made.
2. As for the action movie claims, The Hobbit is a pretty fast moving story and in particular the goblin > wargs/trees sequence is non stop action in the books as well as the movie. The goblin escape was handled quite poorly in the movie though, no reason at all for that huge fall then the goblin lands on top of them.
3. The good Jackson brings to the table FAR out weighs the bad. Again, his use of NZ as Middle Earth is stunning. And lets not forget Gollum, no one else would have done half as well as Jackson with Gollum. And the heart is still there. Jackson obviously loves the source material and it shows. I have no doubts that his adaptations are as good as we wer elikely to get, far better really.
4. Christopher is an ungrateful brat. Jackson has brought mllions to Middle Earth that have gone on to read and appreciate his fathers writings.
Agreed. Before the movies, Tolkien had an underground cult following. Now everyone and their grandma is a Tolkien fan. Don't get me wrong, I looooved those days when not many people knew anything about LOTR but finding anything related to LOTR and the Hobbit back then was tough. After the movies came out millions of people went and bought the books which in turn made them in to life long fans and the book money still goes to the Tolkien estate so Chri$topher Tolkien can suck it. When I was 12 and first read the hobbit and lotr all we had were the books, 3 cartoons, and 2 DOS Interplay games. I'd have killed to have what we have now.
Underground cult following. Yeah, if by underground cult following you mean multiple polls naming it the greatest books of the 20th century. One tha's sold well over 150 million copies. Sheesh.
Yes, and before the movies was LOTR part of the general Lexicon like it is now? No. That is what made it a cult following. The same goes for Enders Game which will become even more popular when the movie comes out. Movies sell books. It's a fact. Ask J. K. Rowling....
This man has done nothing but profit from his dad and yet he still complains. He's an 88 year old man who is out of touch with his dad's true fans. If he was so interested in the so-called integrity of his Dad's creation, why did he take the money and remove the legal objection to the Hobbit? I get the feeling he's just upset and feels that he shoud have gotten an even bigger piece of the pie.
If in 1982 we played with the current mentality, we would have burned down all the pac man games since the red ghost was clearly OP. Instead we just got better at the game.
1. These movies cost a shit ton of money to make. And visually Jackson has done an astounding job with Middle Earth. In order for the movies to be financially successful, some hollywood touches need to be made.
2. As for the action movie claims, The Hobbit is a pretty fast moving story and in particular the goblin > wargs/trees sequence is non stop action in the books as well as the movie. The goblin escape was handled quite poorly in the movie though, no reason at all for that huge fall then the goblin lands on top of them.
3. The good Jackson brings to the table FAR out weighs the bad. Again, his use of NZ as Middle Earth is stunning. And lets not forget Gollum, no one else would have done half as well as Jackson with Gollum. And the heart is still there. Jackson obviously loves the source material and it shows. I have no doubts that his adaptations are as good as we wer elikely to get, far better really.
4. Christopher is an ungrateful brat. Jackson has brought mllions to Middle Earth that have gone on to read and appreciate his fathers writings.
Agreed. Before the movies, Tolkien had an underground cult following. Now everyone and their grandma is a Tolkien fan. Don't get me wrong, I looooved those days when not many people knew anything about LOTR but finding anything related to LOTR and the Hobbit back then was tough. After the movies came out millions of people went and bought the books which in turn made them in to life long fans and the book money still goes to the Tolkien estate so Chri$topher Tolkien can suck it. When I was 12 and first read the hobbit and lotr all we had were the books, 3 cartoons, and 2 DOS Interplay games. I'd have killed to have what we have now.
Underground cult following. Yeah, if by underground cult following you mean multiple polls naming it the greatest books of the 20th century. One tha's sold well over 150 million copies. Sheesh.
Yes, and before the movies was LOTR part of the general Lexicon like it is now? No. That is what made it a cult following. The same goes for Enders Game which will become even more popular when the movie comes out. Movies sell books. It's a fact. Ask J. K. Rowling....
Yes, LOTR is in the top 5 best selling books of all time, vastly more than Enders game, which my have a cult following, unlike LOTR which has been a mainstream success for decades.
"It's a sandbox, if you are not willing to create a castle then all you have is sand" - jtcgs
Well there's no way they can make that literally with its very dodgy politics. Would have to be a satirical piss take of the source like starship troopers.
Lord of the Rings started out as a cult following as well, a little bigger than enders game but it was still a niche book until the movies started being talked about. It wasn't until -after- the first movie that every man, woman, and child knew about it. Not saying it wasn't popular before, but the movies and in some ways the game, made it a well known mega-hit.
Originally posted by Blessings Lord of the Rings started out as a cult following as well, a little bigger than enders game but it was still a niche book until the movies started being talked about. It wasn't until -after- the first movie that every man, woman, and child knew about it. Not saying it wasn't popular before, but the movies and in some ways the game, made it a well known mega-hit.
LOTR is one of the largest selling books in the history of the written word ever, it may have been outside your sheer of knowledge before the movies came out, the movies may have introduced it to an audience unfamiliar with with books, but, it is in no way a niche product, it is one of the best selling books in history.
"It's a sandbox, if you are not willing to create a castle then all you have is sand" - jtcgs
Originally posted by Yamota That is the reason I have not watched Bilbo and nor will I. It is the movie equivalent of a dumbed down ThemePark.
How do you know this without watching it? This is like saying you've never tried a food because it tastes bad.
I have friends who watched it and they told me that it is childish and comical. Not very unlike how Avatar was a childish version of Dances with the Wolves.
1. These movies cost a shit ton of money to make. And visually Jackson has done an astounding job with Middle Earth. In order for the movies to be financially successful, some hollywood touches need to be made.
2. As for the action movie claims, The Hobbit is a pretty fast moving story and in particular the goblin > wargs/trees sequence is non stop action in the books as well as the movie. The goblin escape was handled quite poorly in the movie though, no reason at all for that huge fall then the goblin lands on top of them.
3. The good Jackson brings to the table FAR out weighs the bad. Again, his use of NZ as Middle Earth is stunning. And lets not forget Gollum, no one else would have done half as well as Jackson with Gollum. And the heart is still there. Jackson obviously loves the source material and it shows. I have no doubts that his adaptations are as good as we wer elikely to get, far better really.
4. Christopher is an ungrateful brat. Jackson has brought mllions to Middle Earth that have gone on to read and appreciate his fathers writings.
Agreed. Before the movies, Tolkien had an underground cult following. Now everyone and their grandma is a Tolkien fan. Don't get me wrong, I looooved those days when not many people knew anything about LOTR but finding anything related to LOTR and the Hobbit back then was tough. After the movies came out millions of people went and bought the books which in turn made them in to life long fans and the book money still goes to the Tolkien estate so Chri$topher Tolkien can suck it. When I was 12 and first read the hobbit and lotr all we had were the books, 3 cartoons, and 2 DOS Interplay games. I'd have killed to have what we have now.
Underground cult following. Yeah, if by underground cult following you mean multiple polls naming it the greatest books of the 20th century. One tha's sold well over 150 million copies. Sheesh.
Yes, and before the movies was LOTR part of the general Lexicon like it is now? No. That is what made it a cult following. The same goes for Enders Game which will become even more popular when the movie comes out. Movies sell books. It's a fact. Ask J. K. Rowling....
Uh, yeah, actually it was. Just because you aren't old enough to remember it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Originally posted by Rhoklaw Far as I'm concerned, Peter Jackson is a brilliant director and while his movies may be more action oriented then the books portrayed, you can't tell me the movies didn't do the books justice. The amount of detail Peter went to with environment, costumes and story flow is probably as good as your going to get. Christopher is a pompous brat and I hope he chokes on his wad of money.
Somes up how I feel in a nutshell. I love the books and I feel that Peter Jackson has stuck his soul and a ton of blood into making the films as detailed and authentic as possible. I was blown away by the technological advances in the Hobbit and still shocked at the super quality on the screen. In some ways I like how they have developed minor parts in the book to flesh out the story more.
When compared to other movies based on books, these are 5 star quality and personally if I was a relative I would be immensely proud to see the effort and time put into them.
Its daft to expect a movie to copy a book exactly as some scenes would be boring as hell.
Plus I take offense at the age being mentioned. I am 40 and still loved them so its not just 15-25 year olds and in the sold out session I went to I don't think many were younger than 25!
The two do NOT have to be the exact same thing. All that matters is that Jackson captured the HEART of the stories and nothing more.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
He also received his father's papers after the death: 70 boxes of archives, each stuffed with thousands of unpublished pages. Narratives, tales, lectures, poems of 4,000 lines more or less complete, letters and more letters, all in a frightening disorder. Almost nothing was dated or numbered, just stuffed higgledy-piggledy into the boxes.
He's clearly in a position to make a statement of opinion (the 1st for 40yrs)!
The Letters of JRR Tolkien are iinteresting reading too (The Work, The Person & Their Influences).
Lord of the Rings has been butchered somewhat by the movie - not putting in Tom Bombardil and Prince Imrahil is a mistake imo since both are key characters in the lore and evolution of the story.
Also in The Hobbit the dwarves looking nothing like dwarves supposed to be. They don't not stout at all, they look frail. Dwarves are supposed to be stout folks and should like more like Gimli in the Lord of the Rings, not the skinny asses like in the hobbit. They looked too "humanized".
Though I don't agree with his 15-25 age bracket BS. As a movie it is perfectly fine. It is just not when you are talking in terms of relation to the book.
Also in The Hobbit the dwarves looking nothing like dwarves supposed to be. They don't not stout at all, they look frail. Dwarves are supposed to be stout folks and should like more like Gimli in the Lord of the Rings, not the skinny asses like in the hobbit. They looked too "humanized".
When you allow your book to be made into film, you are assuming changes since books are simply consumed different from film. One of the biggest challenges to filming all those dwarves is making them distinctive at a glace. If a dwarf was on screen, there could be no doubt which one you were looking at. This is why the dwarves can't all look the same and some may not look like a'typical' dwarf. There is a range of looks and all ends of the range were needed to make 13 unique looks.
Anyone who listens to the PJ and the crew has no doubt of their respect ot the original material. They also, however, feel a commitment toward a quality film as well. Any and all liberties taken are made in respect to both of those ends. No liberties = terrible film. Too many liberties = butchering of the books. Balance is needed, and PJ nailed it.
If in 1982 we played with the current mentality, we would have burned down all the pac man games since the red ghost was clearly OP. Instead we just got better at the game.
Originally posted by Yamota That is the reason I have not watched Bilbo and nor will I. It is the movie equivalent of a dumbed down ThemePark.
How do you know this without watching it? This is like saying you've never tried a food because it tastes bad.
I have friends who watched it and they told me that it is childish and comical. Not very unlike how Avatar was a childish version of Dances with the Wolves.
Anyone else take hear-say critics seriously? Yeah, me neither...
Also in The Hobbit the dwarves looking nothing like dwarves supposed to be. They don't not stout at all, they look frail. Dwarves are supposed to be stout folks and should like more like Gimli in the Lord of the Rings, not the skinny asses like in the hobbit. They looked too "humanized".
When you allow your book to be made into film, you are assuming changes since books are simply consumed different from film. One of the biggest challenges to filming all those dwarves is making them distinctive at a glace. If a dwarf was on screen, there could be no doubt which one you were looking at. This is why the dwarves can't all look the same and some may not look like a'typical' dwarf. There is a range of looks and all ends of the range were needed to make 13 unique looks.
Regardless dwarves also have a racial look that was clearly described in JRR's Silmarillion. They are not skinny and they have beards because beard is a thing that defines maturity in a dwarf. You always hear of mention, in any JRR books, that whenever a dwarf is in great sorrow they always "tear at the beards" for a reason.
Just because they have a racial look doesn't mean they can't have "distinctive at a glance " look. If you can tell one elf from another then I don't see the problem why you can't just because all dwarves are supposed to look stocky. If I can tell 1 orc from another in the first movie surely dwarves would be no problem. I saw Peter Jackson's justfication in the Making but I don't think it is a sounded justification.
I feel as if he is just trying to "humanize" dwarf to try to make it look cooler to the everyday moviegoers so that the audience can better sympathize with it. Not saying that is necessarily a bad thing but it is bastardising the lore a bit.
Originally posted by Yamota That is the reason I have not watched Bilbo and nor will I. It is the movie equivalent of a dumbed down ThemePark.
How do you know this without watching it? This is like saying you've never tried a food because it tastes bad.
I have friends who watched it and they told me that it is childish and comical. Not very unlike how Avatar was a childish version of Dances with the Wolves.
Anyone else take hear-say critics seriously? Yeah, me neither...
I thought this thread was about a Tolkien relative criticising the movie? I was just saying it was re-affirming what I thought.
Originally posted by Aramath I think someone should point out to the "family", the stories were aimed at pre teen and young teens. That the author's "family" is not raking in the cash is not the fault of anyone but themselves. Personally, I find it typical of today's ideals. Everyone thinks they are entitled to something because someone else did some work. If the "family" wants to make money, the "family" should get off their lazy arses and do something.
THe Lord of the Rings was most certainly NOT written for pre-teens and young teens.
You my friend have no clue. It most certainly was aimed at that crowd. If you read his biography, he started making these stories for his children. A way to let them know that even little people can make a big difference, the main theme behind the whole world.
I really don't give a damn what his children or great grandson/daughers say. Unless it is from J.R.R tolk himself, they mean nothing. I think Jackson was a blessing by making LOTR/Hobbit movies and making it more aware to the public. Before the movies it was not as big as it was today. So if you don't mind me saying "christopher" can kiss my ass lol.
That last sentence is pretty harsh though. Still he is tyring to diss the most respected (second to spielberg), Peter Jackson.
Originally posted by ShakyMo The hobbit IS A CHILDREN'S BOOK, its supposed to have a light comedic touch.
that said, I think its a mistake using 3 movies to tell the story, 1 would have sufficed.
The way it was originally proposed it was to be two movies with half of each dealing with the Hobbit and the other half dealing with the LOTRO appendices to be more of a lead up to LOTR. That idea sounded fine to me. They could delve into the Necromancer and other things.
Making it three movies just sounds absurd to me though. And after the bloated mess that was King Kong I'm not optimistic. I haven't gotten myself to see the first Hobbit film yet as I have low expectations.
Comments
There is absolutely no need for all the vulgarity and hate. An argument that has merit maintains that merit without trying to attack someone. Case in point, I agree with the core of what you said. Its clear that Jackson loves LoTR. He spent god only knows how much money flying all over the world to find locations that were picture perfect for the story. I bet there is an army of artist right now that are on meds after going through design after design trying to find the perfect weapons and armor to use. He put everything he had into making the movie a visually perfect realization of the books.
His love of the material is not in question.
Underground cult following. Yeah, if by underground cult following you mean multiple polls naming it the greatest books of the 20th century. One tha's sold well over 150 million copies. Sheesh.
He does this a lot.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innovation
I honestly do not give a shit what christopher Tolkien has to say about the matter tbh.
I will listen to him when we are all here talking *his* works... until then? /shrug... he is just another opinion.
Yes, and before the movies was LOTR part of the general Lexicon like it is now? No. That is what made it a cult following. The same goes for Enders Game which will become even more popular when the movie comes out. Movies sell books. It's a fact. Ask J. K. Rowling....
If in 1982 we played with the current mentality, we would have burned down all the pac man games since the red ghost was clearly OP. Instead we just got better at the game.
Yes, LOTR is in the top 5 best selling books of all time, vastly more than Enders game, which my have a cult following, unlike LOTR which has been a mainstream success for decades.
"It's a sandbox, if you are not willing to create a castle then all you have is sand" - jtcgs
Well there's no way they can make that literally with its very dodgy politics. Would have to be a satirical piss take of the source like starship troopers.
You are wrong, facts disagree with your opinion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books
LOTR is one of the largest selling books in the history of the written word ever, it may have been outside your sheer of knowledge before the movies came out, the movies may have introduced it to an audience unfamiliar with with books, but, it is in no way a niche product, it is one of the best selling books in history.
"It's a sandbox, if you are not willing to create a castle then all you have is sand" - jtcgs
I have friends who watched it and they told me that it is childish and comical. Not very unlike how Avatar was a childish version of Dances with the Wolves.
My gaming blog
Uh, yeah, actually it was. Just because you aren't old enough to remember it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Fantasy was huge in the 60s and 70s and taken up somewhat by the counter culture.
Just check out the number of Tolkien references in led zepellin tracks for a start.
Somes up how I feel in a nutshell. I love the books and I feel that Peter Jackson has stuck his soul and a ton of blood into making the films as detailed and authentic as possible. I was blown away by the technological advances in the Hobbit and still shocked at the super quality on the screen. In some ways I like how they have developed minor parts in the book to flesh out the story more.
When compared to other movies based on books, these are 5 star quality and personally if I was a relative I would be immensely proud to see the effort and time put into them.
Its daft to expect a movie to copy a book exactly as some scenes would be boring as hell.
Plus I take offense at the age being mentioned. I am 40 and still loved them so its not just 15-25 year olds and in the sold out session I went to I don't think many were younger than 25!
I really could care less what his opinion is.
A movie is a movie.
A book is a book.
The two do NOT have to be the exact same thing. All that matters is that Jackson captured the HEART of the stories and nothing more.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
He's clearly in a position to make a statement of opinion (the 1st for 40yrs)!
The Letters of JRR Tolkien are iinteresting reading too (The Work, The Person & Their Influences).
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
Christopher Tolkien is right, imo.
Lord of the Rings has been butchered somewhat by the movie - not putting in Tom Bombardil and Prince Imrahil is a mistake imo since both are key characters in the lore and evolution of the story.
Also in The Hobbit the dwarves looking nothing like dwarves supposed to be. They don't not stout at all, they look frail. Dwarves are supposed to be stout folks and should like more like Gimli in the Lord of the Rings, not the skinny asses like in the hobbit. They looked too "humanized".
Though I don't agree with his 15-25 age bracket BS. As a movie it is perfectly fine. It is just not when you are talking in terms of relation to the book.
When you allow your book to be made into film, you are assuming changes since books are simply consumed different from film. One of the biggest challenges to filming all those dwarves is making them distinctive at a glace. If a dwarf was on screen, there could be no doubt which one you were looking at. This is why the dwarves can't all look the same and some may not look like a'typical' dwarf. There is a range of looks and all ends of the range were needed to make 13 unique looks.
Anyone who listens to the PJ and the crew has no doubt of their respect ot the original material. They also, however, feel a commitment toward a quality film as well. Any and all liberties taken are made in respect to both of those ends. No liberties = terrible film. Too many liberties = butchering of the books. Balance is needed, and PJ nailed it.
If in 1982 we played with the current mentality, we would have burned down all the pac man games since the red ghost was clearly OP. Instead we just got better at the game.
Anyone else take hear-say critics seriously? Yeah, me neither...
Regardless dwarves also have a racial look that was clearly described in JRR's Silmarillion. They are not skinny and they have beards because beard is a thing that defines maturity in a dwarf. You always hear of mention, in any JRR books, that whenever a dwarf is in great sorrow they always "tear at the beards" for a reason.
Just because they have a racial look doesn't mean they can't have "distinctive at a glance " look. If you can tell one elf from another then I don't see the problem why you can't just because all dwarves are supposed to look stocky. If I can tell 1 orc from another in the first movie surely dwarves would be no problem. I saw Peter Jackson's justfication in the Making but I don't think it is a sounded justification.
I feel as if he is just trying to "humanize" dwarf to try to make it look cooler to the everyday moviegoers so that the audience can better sympathize with it. Not saying that is necessarily a bad thing but it is bastardising the lore a bit.
I thought this thread was about a Tolkien relative criticising the movie? I was just saying it was re-affirming what I thought.
My gaming blog
that said, I think its a mistake using 3 movies to tell the story, 1 would have sufficed.
You my friend have no clue. It most certainly was aimed at that crowd. If you read his biography, he started making these stories for his children. A way to let them know that even little people can make a big difference, the main theme behind the whole world.
Honestly, this might sound arrogant.
I really don't give a damn what his children or great grandson/daughers say. Unless it is from J.R.R tolk himself, they mean nothing. I think Jackson was a blessing by making LOTR/Hobbit movies and making it more aware to the public. Before the movies it was not as big as it was today. So if you don't mind me saying "christopher" can kiss my ass lol.
That last sentence is pretty harsh though. Still he is tyring to diss the most respected (second to spielberg), Peter Jackson.
The way it was originally proposed it was to be two movies with half of each dealing with the Hobbit and the other half dealing with the LOTRO appendices to be more of a lead up to LOTR. That idea sounded fine to me. They could delve into the Necromancer and other things.
Making it three movies just sounds absurd to me though. And after the bloated mess that was King Kong I'm not optimistic. I haven't gotten myself to see the first Hobbit film yet as I have low expectations.